President Sued Over National Day of Prayer Proclamation

Last month, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (“FFRF”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin against President George W. Bush, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and Shirley Dobson, Chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. Yes, Shirley Dobson is the wife of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a bastion of religious discrimination. 

FFRF’s complaint seeks:

“…a declaration that Public Law100-307 and Presidential and Gubernatorial Prayer Proclamations calling on citizens to pray violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The FFRF complaint goes on to make the following points:

• The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits government officials and persons acting in joint and concerted action with government officials from taking actions that endorse religion, including actions that prefer religion over non-religion
• The designation of a National Day of Prayer has the intent and the effect of giving official recognition to the endorsement of religion; a National Day of Prayer has no secular rationale.
• Prayer is an inherently and quintessentially religious activity.
• Exhortations to pray in official Presidential proclamations, directed at all the citizens of the United States constitute an end in themselves intended to promote and endorse religion  
• President Bush’s mandated Proclamations of a National Day of Prayer inherently violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by endorsing religion over non-religion. 

Wondering if the case has any traction? It isn’t entirely off-base, though I imagine the FFRF will simply be seen as a bunch of spoil sports trying to remove morals-based thinking from society. 

On a legal basis, however, the FFRF’s claims seem to have a basis in legal precedent. In one significant U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Establishment Clause (Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, argued November 20, 1946, decided: February 10, 1947), the court held that:

“The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.”

“ Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.””

Of course, there are other standards to be applied in such cases, so there is no simple legal reasoning to help us reach a straightforward conclusion . Common sense, however, would indicate that the presidential and gubernatorial proclamations that sparked the suit clearly favor religion over non-religion.

Even if you don’t buy that argument, the proclamations, which this year made clear reference to a specific passage within the Psalms, clearly favor Christianity over other religions, something that should be problematic in and of itself.

If you’re interested in helping the FFRF pursue its case against government officials, you can visit their Web site at www. ffrf.org. You’ll find a copy of the complaint as well as copies of the presidential and gubernatorial proclamations in question. You’ll also see a link where you can become a member.